Alright, who screwed up,

[carolinarider09]

I'm missing your point. Are you saying because it's not a federal crime, it doesn't matter ?

It's not a federal crime, thus it's not under the purvey of the FBI, thus there's no business asking the FBI to investigate it.

It'd be like asking Willow to investigate a post on Facebook.

Totally different jurisdictions.

The FBI does more than investigate federal crimes. They do background checks. Which I believe this would fall under.

And how many background checks has the accused been through in the last 20 years?  It did not come up, or we would know by now.

The fact that the background checks have been made and no issues have been identified (that we know of) should count for something.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm missing your point. Are you saying because it's not a federal crime, it doesn't matter ?

It's not a federal crime, thus it's not under the purvey of the FBI, thus there's no business asking the FBI to investigate it.

It'd be like asking Willow to investigate a post on Facebook.

Totally different jurisdictions.

The FBI does more than investigate federal crimes. They do background checks. Which I believe this would fall under.

And how many background checks has the accused been through in the last 20 years?  It did not come up, or we would know by now.

The fact that the background checks have been made and no issues have been identified (that we know of) should count for something.

That is not necessarily true. The background checks did not previously uncover this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-misled-the-senate-under-oath-i-cannot-support-his-nomination/2018/09/13/ea75c740-b77d-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e1cdaf8e793

[Jess from VA]

This just confirms this is nothing but an attempt to delay the confirmation and besmirch a good man's reputation.

You nailed it.  

Nothing definitive can ever come of this.

Get his confirmation delayed past the midterms (and they go badly for the country), he's out.

BTW, it's purview not purvey.  

The Senate needs to confirm him asap, and tell the Dems to go pound sand.

[carolinarider09]

I'm missing your point. Are you saying because it's not a federal crime, it doesn't matter ?

It's not a federal crime, thus it's not under the purvey of the FBI, thus there's no business asking the FBI to investigate it.

It'd be like asking Willow to investigate a post on Facebook.

Totally different jurisdictions.

The FBI does more than investigate federal crimes. They do background checks. Which I believe this would fall under.

And how many background checks has the accused been through in the last 20 years?  It did not come up, or we would know by now.

The fact that the background checks have been made and no issues have been identified (that we know of) should count for something.

That is not necessarily true. The background checks did not previously uncover this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-misled-the-senate-under-oath-i-cannot-support-his-nomination/2018/09/13/ea75c740-b77d-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e1cdaf8e793

That is stating the obvious, correct?  It did not come up.  Ergo it is not fact.  Its an accusation that was made. 

And I can't read your link because they want me to join or pay.  I don't do that.

But we know this from other sources

The other person present in the room, according to the accuser ,has made a statement that it did not happen.

The accused said it did not happen.

After what I have heard on the news in recent months, it I was questioned by the FBI, I'd give a written sworn statement and refuse to answer questions.  

So, according to the accused, those were the only people present at the purported event.  Two have said it did not happen.  And one said it did.  Do we take a vote.  

What more will the FBI be able to determine?  The statements are a matter of record as of today.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm missing your point. Are you saying because it's not a federal crime, it doesn't matter ?

It's not a federal crime, thus it's not under the purvey of the FBI, thus there's no business asking the FBI to investigate it.

It'd be like asking Willow to investigate a post on Facebook.

Totally different jurisdictions.

The FBI does more than investigate federal crimes. They do background checks. Which I believe this would fall under.

And how many background checks has the accused been through in the last 20 years?  It did not come up, or we would know by now.

The fact that the background checks have been made and no issues have been identified (that we know of) should count for something.

That is not necessarily true. The background checks did not previously uncover this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-misled-the-senate-under-oath-i-cannot-support-his-nomination/2018/09/13/ea75c740-b77d-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e1cdaf8e793

That is stating the obvious, correct?  It did not come up.  Ergo it is not fact.  Its an accusation that was made.  

And I can't read your link because they want me to join or pay.  I don't do that.

But we know this from other sources

The other person present in the room, according to the accuser ,has made a statement that it did not happen.

The accused said it did not happen.

After what I have heard on the news in recent months, it I was questioned by the FBI, I'd give a written sworn statement and refuse to answer questions.  

So, according to the accused, those were the only people present at the purported event.  Two have said it did not happen.  And one said it did.  Do we take a vote.  

What more will the FBI be able to determine?  The statements are a matter of record as of today.

Sorry about the link. I will try to summarize it. In an earlier confirmation hearing for a Judgeship he was asked numerous times if he knew or was involved in a scandal about stolen info from the Democrats. He repeatedly denied it. In this hearing it was shown thru his emails that he lied and did know about it and recieved them. My point being, that a FBI background check is not foolproof.

[Alpha Dog]

This is what I have heard and believe are facts.

The lady believes something happened to her when she was 15. She associates it with person A some 25 years later in a marriage counseling session.  

She told no one about the event after it occurred or since until the the counseling session.

The counselor's notes indicate that four were present at the purported event.  She said that was incorrect only two were present at the time she was purportedly attacked.

She had a lie detector test administered by an Ex FBI Agent/employee (we don't know if he was qualified by the FBI to do such tests or his credentials since then).

Lie detector results are not admissible in a court of law as evidence of a crime, but may be used to sort of show something happened but are not results that are, of and my themselves, factual.  Its just data.  Lie detectors show what someone believes is true not what is "true".

The fact the the Senator who got the information kept it under wraps implies the Senator did not believe it was true.  The Senator had a one on one meeting with the accused and did not bring it up.

It was leaked to the press at the last minute by someone on the Senator's staff.

There are 65 women who say they know the person in question and doubt this could have happened.

The other person the lady said was in the room, said it did not happen.

No one has come forward to support the complaint's statements of what happened.  No friends, family, acquaintances.  

It appears that the parents of the lady making the accusation, had dealings with the accused's mother in a court case that did not go well for her parents.

Am I missing something???

This has now grown to 200 women in support of his stand up character.  I heard four of them interviewed yesterday and glowed about his character.  One did state that yes back in the day they did have a beer on occasion, however Brett never lost control, alcohol never changed his behavior, and was the one guy you could count on.  One's sister use to date him and labeled him as a perfect gentleman.                      Yesterday Diane stated their may be falsehoods in what she originally brought forward.

We have seen this tactic play out before, it is in the Dem. playbook to use when all else fails.  It was successful against Bork through character assassination started in large part by that stalwert of virtue, Teddy.  Then  Clarence Thomas called them out for what they were in the early 90s.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=clarence+thomas+speech+1991&view=detail&mid=6F6CA5E15A79061BA0536F6CA5E15A79061BA053&FORM=VIRE

Now we have me too where just an allegation may ruin one's life and they are throwing a final play hail mary, knowing that in this day and time it just may work.   Especially since far to many Repub. are scared ot their own shadow.

[bagelboy]

The NY Daily News wrote an article that says he was consuming beer in High School.  we can't have these types of people as Supreme Court Justices. Next they'll tell us he was looking at Playboy Magazines!

[Pete]

It is a he-said/she-said and most likely we will never know the real truth.
FBI/Testify/congressional hearings will not change that.

If he or she admits or recants existing statements then perhaps the truth will come out.
Otherwise we will never know.

No amount of discussion/hearings/investigation is going to change anything.
Everyone has a point of view but no one except him or her really knows what did or did not happen.
Yes one of them is lying - and they know it - but no one else knows either way.

The only facts in this case are that they know and we do not and unless one of them is an idiot or has an attack of conscience we will never know.

So EVERYONE needs to get over it and move on. This whole discussion is pointless, locally and nationally.

I say hold the vote right now, so we can see where our politicians stand and adjust our votes for November.

I hope this kills this discussion. But I am smart enough to know better. If this steps on your toes, get over it, if a moderator needs to delete this post - so be it. 

[Willow]

This is what I have heard and believe are facts.
...
Am I missing something???

Not missed but you left out a rather huge influencing fact.  The accused and accuser are currently of diametrically opposed political and cultural commitments.  Does that send up red flags for anyone or is it just convenient coincidence?

The two alleged to be involved were both minors.  It was not reported.  Attempted rape is a far fetched assumption on someone's part.  The accuser only said the accused tried to take off her clothes.  If I were seventeen trying to take the clothes off a drunken fifteen year old the word trying would not be in the accusation.

Do I properly understand that even if a crime had been committed as a minor that the record would have been cleaned at his age of accountability.

Bottom line is that people will choose to believe what they wish to believe pretty well despite any evidence to the contrary.

I do hope no one assumes that my behavior as a seventeen year old is an indicator of my present character.

[Pete]

Sorry I do not know who screwed up - it could have been me - although I do not remember what it might have been. But I am real sure I meant it.

And if I screw up in the future - the wise way to bet is I meant it - if not I will say so after the fact.

Stupid really ticks me off and I see way to much of it in today's world. Wise up world.


No you are not missing anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But many are.

[carolinarider09]

Here is one more salient point.

My wife and I were watching the news last night and when the news person said the lady who alleged the incident could not remember where it happened or when it happened.  She said "you never forget that".

When we were dating, one of my wife's close friends told me something akin to what is being alleged by Dr. Ford, happened to my wife to be before we met.  She has never discussed it with me.  I have never asked and it has not affected our relationship.  If she wants to discuss it someday I will listen. 

 

[Gavin_Sons]

guess what? She is no longer going to testify monday.  Siad not until the FBI investigates it. They already said they were not going to because it was 36 years ago and she can't remember where it took place or the date or even the month. Just sometime in the summer. 
She is making the who actually get abused really angry. All this does is makes people who would normally feel bad for abused women more numb to it. They all should be punched in the face.
Just another political stunt to try to delay the vote.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Here is one more salient point.

My wife and I were watching the news last night and when the news person said the lady who alleged the incident could not remember where it happened or when it happened.  She said "you never forget that".

When we were dating, one of my wife's close friends told me something akin to what is being alleged by Dr. Ford, happened to my wife to be before we met.  She has never discussed it with me.  I have never asked and it has not affected our relationship.  If she wants to discuss it someday I will listen. 

 

That kind of makes the point that women many times don’t talk about such things. As far as not remembering where it happened. She described the house in pretty good detail. She just doesn’t remember where it was at.

[The emperor has no clothes]

guess what? She is no longer going to testify monday.  Siad not until the FBI investigates it. They already said they were not going to because it was 36 years ago and she can't remember where it took place or the date or even the month. Just sometime in the summer. 
She is making the who actually get abused really angry. All this does is makes people who would normally feel bad for abused women more numb to it. They all should be punched in the face.
Just another political stunt to try to delay the vote.

Who should get punched in the face ?

[f6john]

I believe Feinstein made a deliberate, calculated decision in the handling of all this. She knew it was a hand grenade even though the accuser is not the best witness for her own accusations. Feinstein had ample time to give the info to authorities ahead of the hearings but kept it in her pocket. She could have broached the subject with Kavanaugh in private meetings and didn’t. So she waits until almost time for a vote and lobs her grenade.

Then the accuser thinks she can set the terms for her own hearing. Either appear or withdraw.

[Gavin_Sons]

guess what? She is no longer going to testify monday.  Siad not until the FBI investigates it. They already said they were not going to because it was 36 years ago and she can't remember where it took place or the date or even the month. Just sometime in the summer. 
She is making the who actually get abused really angry. All this does is makes people who would normally feel bad for abused women more numb to it. They all should be punched in the face.
Just another political stunt to try to delay the vote.

Who should get punched in the face ?

The accuser and Feinstein. They are demeaning every woman that has ever been assaulted or abused

[f6john]

Here is one more salient point.

My wife and I were watching the news last night and when the news person said the lady who alleged the incident could not remember where it happened or when it happened.  She said "you never forget that".

When we were dating, one of my wife's close friends told me something akin to what is being alleged by Dr. Ford, happened to my wife to be before we met.  She has never discussed it with me.  I have never asked and it has not affected our relationship.  If she wants to discuss it someday I will listen.  

 

That kind of makes the point that women many times don’t talk about such things. As far as not remembering where it happened. She described the house in pretty good detail. She just doesn’t remember where it was at.

You must have been on the debate team. You can take something paper thin and barely legible and make it seem like a novel. But you prove the point that there are two sides (at least) to every story.

In reference to your statement about describing the house, what details did she provide that will give the authorities the ability to find said House, which would then give them the ability to discern the owners at the time in question and see who threw the party in question? There are liability questions here and a possible multimillion dollar civil case to come.

[Serk]

and a possible multimillion dollar civil case to come.

More likely a multimillion dollar book deal with options for the movie...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Here is one more salient point.

My wife and I were watching the news last night and when the news person said the lady who alleged the incident could not remember where it happened or when it happened.  She said "you never forget that".

When we were dating, one of my wife's close friends told me something akin to what is being alleged by Dr. Ford, happened to my wife to be before we met.  She has never discussed it with me.  I have never asked and it has not affected our relationship.  If she wants to discuss it someday I will listen.  

 

That kind of makes the point that women many times don’t talk about such things. As far as not remembering where it happened. She described the house in pretty good detail. She just doesn’t remember where it was at.

You must have been on the debate team. You can take something paper thin and barely legible and make it seem like a novel. But you prove the point that there are two sides (at least) to every story.

In reference to your statement about describing the house, what details did she provide that will give the authorities the ability to find said House, which would then give them the ability to discern the owners at the time in question and see who threw the party in question? There are liability questions here and a possible multimillion dollar civil case to come.

nope, debate team was for self described nerds like Serk, (no offense). Football and Hockey for me. I had visions of being the next Don Meredith, but those dreams were dashed by the time I was 14.

[f6john]

Get back to me on those details when you can.

[Pete]

I am amazed at folks wanting to ride this dead horse before beating it.

OK have fun.

[Serk]

debate team was for self described nerds like Serk

Nope, not I. Debate team, or anything with the word "team" or "club" in it were far too peopley for me. I despised every second of high school, participated in no extra curricular activities, calculated what exact grades I needed in which classes in order to graduate, arranged my schedule around those classes in the afternoon and slept it, skipping the other classes entirely.

To this day I still keep in touch with maybe 4 or 5 people from my high school days, and even those are only very loose informal Facebook "friends".


Now... On the issue at hand though. Mr. Head. Seriously. You're an intelligent guy. You're aware, you're thinking. Please, tell me you don't honestly, really, in your heart of hearts, believe there is anything more to this than a Hail Mary play by ultra partisan Democrats trying to scuttle this judge's nomination for political points.

You don't really believe it's anymore more than that.... Do you? Really?

[Skinhead]

Carried out by a retired FBI agent as I understand it.

We all know how unbiased and non-political THEY are.

The NY Daily News wrote an article that says he was consuming beer in High School.   we can't have these types of people as Supreme Court Justices. Next they'll tell us he was looking at Playboy Magazines!

He may have taken the beer in his mouth and swished it around, an not swallowed.  Similar to smoking weed and not inhaling, a common Democrat process.

[f6john]

Carried out by a retired FBI agent as I understand it.

We all know how unbiased and non-political THEY are.

The NY Daily News wrote an article that says he was consuming beer in High School.   we can't have these types of people as Supreme Court Justices. Next they'll tell us he was looking at Playboy Magazines!

He may have taken the beer in his mouth and swished it around, an not swallowed.  Similar to smoking weed and not inhaling, a common Democrat process.

Don’t forget, “not swallowing “ !

[¿spoom]

I believe Feinstein made a deliberate, calculated decision in the handling of all this. She knew it was a hand grenade even though the accuser is not the best witness for her own accusations. Feinstein had ample time to give the info to authorities ahead of the hearings but kept it in her pocket. She could have broached the subject with Kavanaugh in private meetings and didn’t. So she waits until almost time for a vote and lobs her grenade.

Then the accuser thinks she can set the terms for her own hearing. Either appear or withdraw.

Exactly. A rather clumsy attempt to delay the hearings until after the next elections, UNLESS Republicans are gutless enough to do so. There's no honor or truth anywhere in war, and politics are now war. Not sure if it's worse than usual, or just more transparent now, but it's war. Or will be shortly if it gets much worse. I fully understand why Democrats are desperate to disarm those they wish to rule over. They forget how many baseball bats this country has.

[The emperor has no clothes]

debate team was for self described nerds like Serk

Nope, not I. Debate team, or anything with the word "team" or "club" in it were far too peopley for me. I despised every second of high school, participated in no extra curricular activities, calculated what exact grades I needed in which classes in order to graduate, arranged my schedule around those classes in the afternoon and slept it, skipping the other classes entirely.

To this day I still keep in touch with maybe 4 or 5 people from my high school days, and even those are only very loose informal Facebook "friends".


Now... On the issue at hand though. Mr. Head. Seriously. You're an intelligent guy. You're aware, you're thinking. Please, tell me you don't honestly, really, in your heart of hearts, believe there is anything more to this than a Hail Mary play by ultra partisan Democrats trying to scuttle this judge's nomination for political points.

You don't really believe it's anymore more than that.... Do you? Really?

If I was a betting man (which I’m not usually) I would say it’s likely that the Democrats are trying to use something that fell into their laps for a strategic advantage. Do I think they went out and recruited this lady ? Very doubtful. I’d say there is a good chance that SOMETHING happened to her when she was 15. What it was, we will probably never know. I do think the FBI should talk to all 3 of them. The buddies denial of “I don’t remember anything happening” sounds like something a lawyer would tell him to say. Her putting him in the story makes no sense, unless he was actually there.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Carried out by a retired FBI agent as I understand it.

We all know how unbiased and non-political THEY ARE

Who would you prefer give the test ?

[f6john]

Just a thought. She took a polygraph and it showed she was being truthful. What if Kavanaugh took a polygraph and he showed he was being truthful? Polygraphs are a tool and they prove nothing. They can be effective in breaking down some people and getting admissions. How do you effectively polygraph someone that is so vague on facts? The few polygraphs I’ve taken have been yes or no answers. I don’t remember doesn’t work.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just a thought. She took a polygraph and it showed she was being truthful. What if Kavanaugh took a polygraph and he showed he was being truthful? Polygraphs are a tool and they prove nothing. They can be effective in breaking down some people and getting admissions. How do you effectively polygraph someone that is so vague on facts? The few polygraphs I’ve taken have been yes or no answers. I don’t remember doesn’t work.

Sounds like an excellent idea 

[Jess from VA]

She refused her chance for a hearing NOW.  (So it's all about delay)

That's it, move the vote up and get it done.

End of story.

[Cracker Jack]

Funny how we believe what we want to believe and what supports our argument.

Meathead reads the letter and it sounds believable to him. I'd say it sounds very believable to all members of the resistance party who so very badly wants it to be true. Kind of an easy sell I'd say.


On the other hand, reasonable people like me see it for what it is and that's an obvious desperate delay tactic held up and thrown in at the last minute by the "defeat at any/all cost movement".


P. S.; Please excuse me for stepping in on a political thread, I'll try to not let it happen again.

[..]

https://news.grabien.com/story-hillary-kavanaughs-accuser-deserves-benefit-doubt

"the benefit of the doubt."

Do we apply this to Uranium, Iran, Benghazi and on and on and on?

Oh boy, would y'all have a conniption fit if it was so  (some emojis so they know who "y'all" refers to  )

[The emperor has no clothes]

Funny how we believe what we want to believe and what supports our argument.

Meathead reads the letter and it sounds believable to him. I'd say it sounds very believable to all members of the resistance party who so very badly wants it to be true. Kind of an easy sell I'd say.


On the other hand, reasonable people like me see it for what it is and that's an obvious desperate delay tactic held up and thrown in at the last minute by the "defeat at any/all cost movement".


P. S.; Please excuse me for stepping in on a political thread, I'll try to not let it happen again.

You correct, some believe what they want to believe. If you will reread what I said about the letter from the lawyer. I said “it sounds reasonable to me”. There is a big difference. What the lawyer proposed is entirely reasonable in my opinion. Has nothing to do with whether I find the accuser’s story believable.

[Gavin_Sons]

Funny how we believe what we want to believe and what supports our argument.

Meathead reads the letter and it sounds believable to him. I'd say it sounds very believable to all members of the resistance party who so very badly wants it to be true. Kind of an easy sell I'd say.


On the other hand, reasonable people like me see it for what it is and that's an obvious desperate delay tactic held up and thrown in at the last minute by the "defeat at any/all cost movement".


P. S.; Please excuse me for stepping in on a political thread, I'll try to not let it happen again.

You correct, some believe what they want to believe. If you will reread what I said about the letter from the lawyer. I said “it sounds reasonable to me”. There is a big difference. What the lawyer proposed is entirely reasonable in my opinion. Has nothing to do with whether I find the accuser’s story believable.

but it is not reasonable at all. Since when does the FBI investigate rape claims? That is always done at the County/city and maybe state level. Never the Federal level.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It’s not a case of investigating for criminal action, the statute of limitations is long gone. It’s a background check investigation.

[carolinarider09]

It’s not a case of investigating for criminal action, the statute of limitations is long gone. It’s a background check investigation.

Thats very disingenuous statement.  How would anyone investigate an allegation that has no date for the allegation?  Even the place of the purported event is unknown.

Definition of a background check -

A background check or background investigation is the process of looking up and compiling criminal records, commercial records, and financial records of an individual or an organization.

 How would a "background" check be performed?  There are no criminal records because it was never reported.  There are no commercial records because the time and date of the event can not be determined.  There are no financial records it investigate for the same reasons. 

[Bighead]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

[f6john]

A background check that has already been completed 6 times. The accusation has done its job, nothing will satisfy those pushing for more investigations and they will continue to beat their disrupt, entangle, impeach drum until Trump is no longer President.

It’s my understanding that the only way the FBI investigates is an order by the President. Ain’t gonna happen. So we must just strap in for more crying and bitching from the never Trump folks. Might as well vote and if his appointment isn’t upheld we just move on to the next.

I’ve heard comments from the talking heads on tv that if the nomination is derailed it will be a huge defeat for Trump. I say it will be a defeat for the American people.

[f6john]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

[..]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

The rabbit hole looms large.